&&0 





Glass 



ISTQ^ 



Book .W n 9 



SPEECH ^.y.L, -JJUp. 



OF 



MR. WINTBROP, OF MlSSiCHCSETTS, 



ON 



THE OREGON QUESTION 



DELIVERED IN 



HE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, JAN. 3, 1846 



WASHINGTON: 

J. & G. e. GIDEON, PRINTERS. 
1846. 



("C^ 







SPEECH 



House of Representatives of the United States, January 3d, 184G. 

The House having under consideration the bill reported by the Committee on Military Affairs, 
" to provide for raising two additional regiments of riflemen, and for other purposes," and 
the question being upon the motion to commit the bill to the Committee of the Whole on the 
State of the Union, and Mr. John driNCY Adams and Mr. C. J. Ingersoll, and others, 
having addressed the House at length — 

Mr. WINTHROP obtained the floor, and proceeded to say, that he 
understood the Chair to have decided that, upon the pending motion to re- 
fer to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union a bill for rais- 
ing two regiments of riflemen, the whole question of Oregon was open to 
•debate. The House, too, had virtually sanctioned this decision, by declin- 
ing to sustain the previous question a few moments since. Mr. W. could 
not altogether agree in the fitness of such a decision, but was imwilling to 
omit the opportunity which it afforded for expressing some views upon the 
•subject. 

My honorable colleague (Mr. Adams) in his remarks yesterday, and the 
chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (Mr. C.J. Ingersoll) this 
morning, have alluded to the course pursued by them last year, and have told 
us that they both voted for giving immediate notice to Great Britain of our in- 
tention to terminate, at the earliest day, what has been called the convention 
of joint occupation. Though a much humbler member of the House, I may 
be permitted to allude to the fact that I voted against that proceeding last year, 
and to add that I intend to do so now. I may be allowed also to remind the 
House of a series of resolutions upon this subject, which I offered to their 
consideration some days ago. I know not whether those resolutions will 
ever emerge from the pile of matter under which they now lie l)uried upon 
your table. If they should, however, I am ])v no means sure that I shall 
not propose to lay them aside again without discussion. Nothing certainly 
was further from my purpose in offering thon than to involve this House in 
a stormy debate about peace and war. Such debates, I am quite sensible, 
are of most injurious influence on the public quiet and prosperity, and I have 
no disposition to render myself responsible for a renewal of them. I desired 
only then, and I desire only now, to place before the House and before the 
■country, before it is too late, some plain and precise opinions, which are sin- 
■cerely and strongly entertained by myself, and which I believe to be no less 
:strongly enteruiined by many of those with whom I am politically associated , 
in regard to the present most critical state of our foreign relations. 

I desire to do this on many accounts, and to do it without delay. An 
idea seems to have been gaining ground in some quarters, and to have been 
somewhat industriously propagated in all quarters, that there is no diflference 
of sentiment in this House in reference to the course which has thus far beea 
pursued, or which seems about to be pursued hereafter, in regard to this un- 
fortunate Oregon controversy. Now, sir, upon one or two points connected 



wkh it, there may be no difference of opinion. I believe there is-none upon 
the point, that tlie United States have rights in Oregon which are not to be 
rehnquisbed. I beHeve there is none upon the point, that, if the controversy 
with Great Britain should result in war, our country, and the rights of our 
country, on both sides of the Rocky Mountains, are to be maintained and 
defended with all the power and all the vigor we possess. I believe there 
is none either upon the point, that sucii is the state of this controversy at the 
present moment , that we owe it to ourselves , as guardians of the public safety ,, 
to bestow something more than the ordinary annual attention — I might bet- 
ter say the ordinary armual inatteiitioii — upon our national defences, and ta 
place our country in a posture of preparation for meeting the worst conse- 
quences which may befall it. 

So far, Mr. Speaker, I believe there are common opinions, united thoughts 
and counsels, in both branches of Congress, and indeed throughout the 
country, without distinction of party. But certainly there are wide differ- 
ences of sentiment among ourselves and among our constituents, upon other 
no less interesting and substantial points. And I am not one of those who 
believe in the necessity , or in the expediency , of concealing these differences. 
I have very little faith in the hush pohcy. I have very little foith in the 
wisdom of keeping up an appearance of entire unanimity upon a question 
like this, where such unanimity does not exist, for the sake of mere stage 
effect, and with a view of making a more profound impression upon the spec- 
tators. Every body understands such concerted arrangements; every body 
sees through them, whether the theatre of their presentment be on one side 
of the Atlantic or tl e other. 

Because Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell, and Lord Aberdeen and 
LordPalmerston, thought fit to unite in a common and coincident expression 
of sentiment, in the two Houses of Parliament, eight or nine months ago^ 
during the well-remembered debate on the President's inaugural address, I 
do not know — I do not believe — that the people of the United States were 
any the more awed from the maintenance of their own previous views and 
purposes in regard to Oregon, than if these distinguished leaders of opposite 
parties had exhibited something less of dramatic unity, and had indulged 
rather more freely in those diversities of sentijuent whicli ordinarily lend in- 
terest to their discussions. Nor am I of opinion, on the other hand, that a 
similar course on this side of the ocean is to have any material influence on 
the action of the British Government . I hold, at any rate, that it is better for 
us all to speak our own minds, to declare our own honest judgments, and to- 
look more to the influence of our remarks upon our own people and our own 
policy, than upon those of Great Britain. 

I may add, sir, that in presenting these resolutions at the earliest oppor- 
tunity which Wcis afforded me, I was 'actuated by the desire to put my owrt 
views upon record, before the returning Steamers should bring back to us- 
from England ihe angry recrnninations to which the late message of the 
President may not improbably give occasion, and before the passions of our 
people were inflamed by any violent outbreaks of British feeling, which that 
document is so likely to excite. 

I am perfectly aware, Mr. Speaker, that, express (he views which I en- 
tertain when I may, I shall not escape reproach and imputation from some 
quarters of the House. 1 know that there are those by whom the slightest 
syllable of dissent from the exueme views which the Administration would 



5* 

seem recently to have adopted , will be eagerly seized upon as evidence of a 
want of Avhat they call patriotism and American spirit. I spurn all such 
imputations in advance. 1 spurn the notion that patriotism can only be 
manifested by plunging the nation into war, or that the love of one's own 
country can only be measured by one's hatred to any other country. Sir, 
the American spirit that is wanted at the present moment, wanted for our 
liighest honor; wanted for our dearest interests, is that which dares to con- 
front the mad impulses of a superficial popular sentiment, and to appeal to 
the sober second thoughts of moral and intelligent men. Every schoolboy 
can declaim about honor and war, the British lion and the American eagle; 
and it is a vice of our nature that the calmest of us liave heart-striiij^s which 
may vibiate for a moment even to such vulgar touches. But, (thanks to 
the institutions of education and religion which our fathers founded), the 
great mass of the American people have also, an intelligence and a moral 
sense which will sooner or later respond to appeals of a higher and nobler 
5ort, if we will only have the firmness to make them. It was a remark of 
an old English courtier, a century and a half ago, to one who threatened to 
take the sense of the people on some important c[uestion, that he would take 
the nonsense of the people and beat him twenty to one. And it might have 
been something better than a good joke in relation to the people of England 
at the time it was uttered. But I am not ready to regard it as applicable to 
our own intelligent and educated American people at the present day. An 
appeal to the nonsense of the American people may succeed for an hour; 
but the stern sense of the country will soon re-assert itself, and will carry 
the day in the end. 

But, Mr. Speaker, there are other reproaches, beside those of mv oppo- 
nents, to which I may be thought to subject myself, by the formal promul- 
gation of the views which I entertain on this subject. It has been said, in 
some quarters, that it was not good party policy to avow such doctrines; 
tiiat the friends of the Administration desire nothing so much as an excuse 
for branding the Whigs of the Union as the Peace party; and that the only 
course for us in the minority to pursue, is to brag about our readiness for 
%var with those that brag loudest. Now, I am entirely sensible that if an 
opponent of the present Administration were willing to make a mere party 
instrument of this Oregon negotiation, he might find in its most recent his- 
tory the amplest materials, for throwing back upon the majority in this House 
the imputations, in which they have been heretofore so leady to indulge. 
How easy and obvious it would be for us to ask, where, where was the he- 
roic determination of the Executive to vindicate our t.tle to the whole of Or- 
egon — yes, sir, ''the whole or none" — when a deliberate offer of more 
than five degrees of latitude was recently made to Great Britain? Made, 
too, at a moment when tlie Piesident and his Secretary of State tellyoa 
■that they firndy believed that our right to the whole was clear and umiues- 
tionable ! How easy it would be to taunt the Secretary of State with the 
policy he has pursued in his correspondence, of keeping back tliose convin- 
cing arguments upon which he now relies to justify him in claiming the 
whole of this disputed territory, until his last letter — until he had tried in 
vain to induce Great Britain to accept a large part of this territory — as if he 
were afraid to let even his own country understand how good our title 
really was, in case he could succeed in effecting a con)promise ! 

For myself, however, I utterly repudiate all idea of party obligations or 



party views in connexion wiih this question. I scorn the suggestion that 
the peace of my country is to be regarded as a mere pawn on the pohtical 
chessboard , to be perilled for any mere party triumph . We have seen enough; 
of the mischief of mingling such questions with party politics. We see it 
at this moment. It has been openly avowed elsewhere, and was repeated 
by the honorable member from Illinois (Mr. Douglass) in this House yes- 
terday, that Oregon and Texas were born and cradled together in the Bal- 
timore'convention; that they were the twin offspring of that political con- 
clave; and in that avowal may be found the whole explanation of the dif- 
ficulties and danijers with which the question is now attended. 

I honor the Administration, Mr. Speaker, for whatever spirit of concilia- 
tion, compromise, and peace, it has hitherto manifested on this subject, and 
have no hesitation in saying so. If 1 have anything to reproach them 
with, or taunt them for, it is for what appears to me as an unreasonable 
and precipitate abandonment of that spirit. And if anybody desires on 
this account, or any other account, to brand me as a member of the Peace 
party, I bare my bosom, I hold out both my hands, to receive that brand, 
I am willing to* take its first and deepest impression, while the iron is sharp- 
est and hottest. If there be anything of shame in such a brand, I certain- 
ly glory in my shame. As Ciceio said, in contemplation of any odiun> 
which might attach to him for dealing in too severe or summary a manner 
with Catiline, ^'Eo animo semper fui,ut invidiam virtute partajn , glo- 
riam , 7io?i invidiam , pittarem .' " 

But who, who is willing to bear the brand of being a member of the 
war party? Who will submit to have that Cain-mark stamped upon his i 
brow? I thank Heaven that all men, on all sides, have thus far refused tO' 
wear it. No man, of ever so extreme opinions, has ventured yet to speak 
upon this question without protesting, in the roundest terms, that he was. 
for peace. Even the honorable member from Illinois, (Mr. Douglass,) 
who was for giving the notice to quit at the earliest day, and for proceeding: 
at once to build forts and stockades, and for asserting an exclusive jurisdic- 
tiori over the whole Oregon Territory at the very instant at which ihft 
twelve months should expire, was as stout as any of us for preserving- 
peace. My venerable colleague, (Mr. Adams,) too, from whom I always-i 
differ with great regret, but diti'ering from whom on the present occasion, i| 
conform not more to my own conscientious judgment than to the opinions, 
of my constituents, and of a great majority of the people of Massachu- 
setts, as 1 understand them — he, too, I am sure, even in that very tor- 
rent of eloquent indignation which cost us for a moment the order 
and dignity of the House, could have had nothing but the peace of the 
country at heart. So far as peace, then, is concerned, it seems that we are 
all agreed. "Only it must be an honorable peace ;" that, I think, is the 
stereotyped phrase of the day: and all our difierences are thus reduced to 
the question. What constitutes an honorable peace? 

Undoubtedly, Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question must depend upon 
. the peculiar circumstances of the case to which it is applied. Yet, I will not 
pass to the consideration of that case without putting the burden of proof where 
it belongs. Peace, sir , in itself, in its own nature, and of its own original es- 
sence, is honorable. No individual, no nation, can lay a higher claim to 
the honor of man or the blessing of Heaven than to seek peace and ensue 
it. Louis Philippe may envy no monument which ever covered human 
(dust; if it may justly bs inscribed on his tombstone, (as has recently beea 



7 

suggested), that, while he lived, the peace of Europe was secure I And, on 
the other hand, war, in its proper character, is disgraceful; and the man or 
the country which shall wilfully and wantonly provoke it, deserves the ex- 
ecrations of earth and Heaven. These, Mr. Speaker, are the general prin- 
ciples which civilization and Christianity have at length engrafted upon the 
public code of Christendom. If there be exceptions to them, as I do not 
deny there are, they are to be proved specially by those who allege them. 
Is there, then, anything in the Oregon controversy, as it now stands before 
us, which furnishes an exception to these general principles? — anything 
which would render a pacific policy discreditable, or which would invest 
war with any degree of true honor? 1 deny it altogether. I reiterate the 
propositions of the resolutions on your table. I maintain — 

1. That this question, from its very nature, is peculiarly and eminently 
one for negotiation, compromise, and amicable adjustment. 

2. That satisfactory evidence has not yet been afforded that no compro- 
mise which the United States ought to accept can be effected. 

3. That, if no other mode of amicable settlement remains, arbitration 
ought to be resorted to; and that this Government cannot relieve itself from 
its responsibility to maintain the peace of the country while arbitration is- 
still untried. 

I perceive, sir, that the brief time allowed us in debate will compel me 
to deal in the most summary way with these propositions, and that I must 
look to other opportunities for doing full justice either to them or to myself. 
Let me hasten, however, to do them what justice I may. 

There are three distinct views in which this question may be presented, 
as one peculiarly for negotiation and compromise. In the first place, there 
is the character of the subject matter of the controversy. Unquestionably 
there may be rights and claims not of a nature to admit of compromise, 
and as to which there must be absolute and unconditional relinquishment 
on one side or the other, or a conflict is inevitable. I may allude to the 
impressment of our seamen as an example — a practice which could not be 
renewed by Great Britain at any moment, or under any circumstances, 
without producing immediate hostilities. But here we have as the bone of 
our contention, a vast and vacant territory, thousands of miles distant from 
both countries, entirely capable of division, and the loss of any part, 1 had 
almost said of the whole, of which, would not be of the smallest practical 
moment to either of them — a territory the sovereignty of which might re- 
main in abeyance for a half century longer without serious inconvenience 
or detriment to anybody, and in reference to which there is certainly not 
the slightest pretence of a necessity for summary or precipitate action. We 
need ports on the Pacific. As to land, we have millions of acres of better 
land still unoccupied on this side of the mountains. What a spectacle it 
would be, in the sight of men and angels, for the two countries which 
claim to have made the greatest advances in civilization and Christianity, 
and which are bound together by so many ties of nature and art, of kin- 
dred and of commerce, each of them with possessions so vast and various, 
to be seen engaging in a conflict of brute force for the immediate and ex- 
clusive occupation of the whole of Oregon ! The annals of barbarism 
would afford no parallel to such a scene ! 
' la the second place; sij; there is the character of the title to this territory 



8 

«oa both sides. I shall attempt no analysis or history of this title. lam 
certainly not disposed to vindicate the British title; and as to the American, 
there is nothing to be added to the successive expositions of the eminent 
statesmen and diplomatists by whom it has been illustrated. But, after all, 
what a title it is to fight about ! Who can pretend that it is free from all 
difficulty or doubt? Who would take an acre of land upon such a title as 
an investment, without the warranty of something more than the two regi- 
ments of riflemen for which your bill provides? Of what is the title made 
up? Vague traditions of settlement, musty records of old voyages, con- 
flicting claims of discovery, disputed principles of public law, acknowledged 
violations of the rights of aboriginal occupants — these are the elements — I 
had almost said the beggarly elements — out of which our clear and indispu- 
table title is compounded. I declare to you, sir, that as often as I thread 
the mazes of this controversy, it seems to me to be a dispute as to the rela- 
tive rights of two parties to a territory , .to which neither of them has any 
real right whatever; and I should hardly blame the other nations of the 
world foi' insisting on coming in for scot and lot in the partition of it. Cer- 
tainly, if we should be so false to our character as civilized nations as to 
fight about it, the rest of Christendom would be justified, if they had the 
power, in treating us as we have always treated the savage tribes of our 
own continent, and turning us both out altogether. 

Why, look at a single fact in the history of this controversy. In 1818 
we thought our title to Oregon as clear and as unquestionable as we think it 
now. "We proposed then to divide it with Great Britain, without the 
slightest reference to any third party in interest. Yet at that very moment 
tSpain was in possession of those rights of discovery, which, since they were 
transferred to us by the treaty of Florida, we consider as constituting one of the 
strongest elements in our whole case. It is a most notable incident that in 
the discussions of 1818 not a word was said in regard either to the rights of 
Spain or to the Nootka convention. Yet now Great Britain and the United 
States are found placing their principal reliance on these two sources of title. 
Is there not enough in .this historical fact to lead us to distrust our own 
judgments and our own conclusions, and to warn us of the danger of fixing 
•our views so exclusively on our own real or imagined wants or interests as 
to overlook the rights of others? 

Let me not be misunderstood, Mr. Speaker. I have no hesitation in 
saying that I honestly think, upon as dispassionate a review of the cor- 
respondence as I am capable of, that the American title to Oregon is the 
best now in existence. But I honestly think also that the whole character 
of the title is too confused and complicated to justify any arbitrary and ex- 
clusive assertions of right, and that a compromise of the question is every 
■way consistent with reason, interest, and honor. 

There is one element in our title, however, which I confess that I have 
aiot named, and to which I may not have done entire justice. I mean that 
new levelation of riglit whi'-h has been designated as tlie right of our inan- 
ifest destiny to spread over tins vJiole continent. It has been openly avowed 
m a leading administration journal that this, after all, is our best and strongest 
title; one so clear, so pre-eminent, and so indisputable, that if Great Britain 
had all our other titles in addition to her own, they would weigh nothing 
against it. The right of our manifest destiny ! There is a right for a nev«^ 
•chapter in the law of nations; or rather in the special laws of our own coun- 



tiy ; for I suppose the right of a manifest destiny to spread, will not be ad- 
mitted to exist in any nation except the universal Yankee nation ! This 
right of our manifest destiny, Mr. Speaker, reminds me of another source of 
title which is worthy of being placed beside it. Spain and Portugal, we all 
know, in the early part of the sixteenth century laid claim to the jurisdiction 
of this whole northern continent of America. Francis I. is related to have 
replied to this pretension, that he should like to see the clause in Adanis Will 
in which their exclusive title was found. Now, sir, I look for an early re- 
production of this idea. I have no doubt that if due search be made, a copy 
of this primeval instrument, with a clause giving us the whole of Oregon , can 
be somewhere hunted up. Perhaps it may be found in that same Illinois 
cave in which the Mormon Testament has been discovered. I conmiend 
the subject to the attention of those in that neighborhood, and will promise 
to withdraw all my opposition to giving notice or taking possession , when- 
ever the right of our manifest destiny can be fortified by the provisions of 
our great first parent's Will ! 

Mr. Speaker, there is a third, and, in my judgment, a still more conclu- ' 
sive reason for regarding this question as one for negotiation and compro- 
mise. I refer to its history, and to the admissions on both sides which that 
history contains. For thirty years this question has been considered and 
treated as one not of title , but of boundary. To run a boundary line between 
Great Britain and the United States from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific 
Ocean — this has been the avowed object of each successive negotiatior . It 
has been so treated by Mr. Monroe, and Mr. x\dams, and Mr. Gallatin, and 
Mr. Rush, and by all the other American statesmen who have treated of it at 
all. Offers of compromise and arrangement have been repeatedly made on 
both sides on this basis. Three times we have offered to Great Britain to 
divide with her on the 49th parallel of latitude, and to give her the naviga- 
tion of the Columbia into the bargain. Mr. Polk and Mr. Buchanan them- 
selves have acted upon the same principle up to the moment of the final 
abrupt termination of the negotiations. They have offered again to make 
the 49th parallel the boundary line between the possessions of Great Britain 
and the United States in the Northwestern Territory. With what face, then, 
can we now turn lound and declare that there is no boundary line to be run, 
nothing to negotiate about, and that any such course would involve a ces- 
sion and surrender of American soil ! Such a course would be an impeach- 
ment of the conduct of the distinguished statesmen whose names I have 
mentioned. It implies an imputation upon the present President of the 
United States and his Secretary of State. And, explain it as we may, it 
would be regarded as an unwarrantable and offensive assumption by the 
Avhole civilized world. 

Sir, I am glad to perceive that the language of the President's message is 
in some degree conformable to this view. He tells us that the history of the 
negotiation thus far "affords satisfactory evidence," not that no compromise 
ought to be made, but that ''no compromise which the United States ought 
to accept- can be effected." 

And this brings me to another of my propositions. I take issue with the 
message on this point. I deny that the rejection of the precise offer which 
was made to Great Britain last summer, has furnished satisfactory evidence 
that no compromise which the United States ought to accept can be effected. 
Certainly, I regret that Great Britain did not accept that offer. Certainlj;,, 



1& 

I think that this question might fairly be settled on the basis of the 49th par- 
allel ; and I believe sincerely that , if precipitate and offensive steps be not taken 
on our part, the question will ultimately be settled on that basis. But there 
may be little deviations from that line required to make it acceptable to Great 
Britain; and, if so, we ought not to hesitate in making them. I deny that 
the precise offer of Mr. Buchanan is the only one which the United States- 
ought to accept for the sake of peace. Such a suggestion is an impeach- 
ment of the wisdom and patriotism of men by no means his inferiors, who' 
have made other and more liberal offers. I think that we ought to accept a 
compromise at least as favorable to Great Britain as the one which we have 
three times proposed to her. If we are unwilling to give her the navigation of" 
the Columbia, we should provide some equivalent for it. Ifthe question is to be 
amicably settled, it must be settled on terms co7xsistent with the honor of both 
parties. And nobody can imagine that Great Britain will regard it as con- 
sistent with her honor, to take a line less favorable to her interests than that 
which she has three times dechned within the last thirty years. Let me say ^ 
however, in regard to the navigation of the Columbia, that, if I understand 
it arightij it is of very litde importance whether we give it or withhold it, as 
the river is believed not to be navigable at all where it is struck by the forty- 
ninth parallel of latitude. I trust that we shall not add folly to crime ; b/ 
going to war rather than yield the navigation of an unnavigable river. 

And here, sir, I have a word to say in reference to a remark made b}'^ the 
honorable member from New York who has just taken his seat, (Mr. Pres- 
ton King.) I understood him to say that the Administration, in making 
the offer of the 49th parallel to Great Britain during the last summer, did it 
with the perfect understanding that it would be rejected. I appeal to the- 
honorable member to say whether I have quoted him correctly. 

Mr. P. KiNCi. I said I had heard it, and believed it to be so. 

Mr. WiNTHROP. There is an admission to which I wish to call the sol- 
emn attention of the House and of the country. I trust in Heaven that the 
honorable member is mistaken. I trust, for the honor of the country, that 
the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs will obtain official autho- 
rity to contradict this statement. 

Mr. C. J. iNCiERSOLL. I will not wait for any authority. I deny it most 
unqualitiedly. 

Mr. P. King. I have no other authority on this subject than public ru- 
mor, and this I believe to be correct. 

Mr. WiNTHROP. It cannot be correct. What sort of an Administration' 
are you supporting, if you can believe them to have been guilty of an 
act of such gross duplicity in the face of the world, in order to furnish them- 
selves with a pretext for war ? I would not have heard their enemy suggest 
such an idea. 

Mr. P. King, (Mr. W. again yielding the floor for explanation,) Any 
man of common sense might have known that such a proposition to the Bri- 
tish Government would be rejected, as it has been, without even being re- 
mitted across the water. 

Mr. WiNTHROP. Better and better. I thank the honorable member even, 
more for the admission he has now made. 

Mr. P. King. You are welcome to it. 

Mr. WiNTHROP. I am under no particular obligation to vindicate the 
course of the present Administration. But, as an American citizen, with- 



11 

out regard to parly, and with a single eye to the honor of my country, I 
would indignantly repel the the idea that our Government, in whose soever 
hands it might be, could be guilty of so scandalous and abominable an act 
as that which has now been imputed to it by one of its peculiar defenders. 
But the honorable member admits that any man of common sense must 
have understood , that the minister of Great Britain would refuse the offer 
which was thus made, (hypocritically made, as he believes,) and would refuse 
it precisely as it has been refused, without even transmitting it across the wa- 
ter. What, then, becomes of all the indignation which has been expres- 
sed and implied by the Administration and its friends, from the Secretary of 
State downwards, at the rejection, and more particularly at the manner of 
the rejection, of that offer? Why, it seems, after all , that the honorable 
member and myself are not so very far apart. This admission of his is en- 
tirely in accordance with the view w^iich I have already expressed , that if 
any compromise whatever w^as to be made, (and I rejoice to find that even 
the chairman of the Committee of Foreign Affairs has this morning empha- 
tically denominated himself a compromiser,) the rejection of this precise of- 
fer does not authorize us to leap at once to the conclusion, that '^ no compro- 
mise which the United States ought to accept can be effected." If our 
Government has thus far made no offer, except one which ''any man of 
common sense might have known would be rejected precisely as it has 
been," I trust it will bethink itself of making another hereafter, which will 
afford to Great Britain a less reasonable pretext for so summary a proceeding. 

But, Mr. Speaker, it is certainly possible that, with the best intentions on 
both sides of the water, all efforts at negotiating a compromise may fail. It 
may turn out hereafter, though T deny that it is yet proved, that no com- 
pjiomise which the United States ought to accept can be effected. What 
then? Is there no resort but war? Yes, yes; there is still another easy 
and obvious mode of averting that fearful alternative. I mean arbitration-^ 
a resort so reasonable, so just, so conformable to the principles which gov- 
ern us in our daily domestic affairs, so conformable to the spirit of civiliza- 
tion and Christianity, that no man will venture to say one word against it 
in the abstract. But then we can find no impartial arbiter, say gentlemen; 
and, therefore, we will have no arbitration. Our title is so clear and so in- 
disputable that we can find nobody in the wide world impartial enough to 
give it a fair consideration ! 

Sir, this is a most unworthy pretence; unworthy of us, and offensive to- 
all mankind. It is doing injustice to our own case and to our own charac- 
ter, to assume that all the world are prejudiced against us. Nothing but a 
consciousness of havintr oriven cause for such a state of feeling, could have 
suggested its existence. The day has been when w^e could hold up our 
heads and appeal confidently, not merely for justice, but for sympathy and 
succor, if they were needed, to more than one gallant and generous nation. 
We may do so again, if we will not wantonly outrage the feelings of the 
civilized world. For myself, there is no monarch in Europe to Avhom I 
should fear to submit this question. The King of France, the King of 
Prussia, the Emperor of Russia, either of them would bring to it intelli- 
gence, impartiality, and ability. But, if there be a jealousy of crowned 
heads, why not propose a commission of civihans? If you wMll put no 
trust in prmces, there are profound jurists, accomplished historians, men of 
learning, philosophy; and science^ on both sides of the water^ from whom u 



12 

tribunal might be constituted, whose decision upon any question would 
command universal confidence and respect. The venerable Gallatin, (to 
name no other American name.) to whose original exposition of this ques- 
tion we owe almost all that is valuable in the papers by which our title has 
.since been enforced, would add the crowning grace to his long life of pa- 
triotic service, by representing his country once more in a tribunal to which 
her honor, her interests, and her peace might safely be entrusted. At any 
rate, let us not reject the idea of arbitration in the abstract; and, if the terms 
cannot be agreed upon afterwards, we shall have some sort of apology for not 
submitting to it. General Jackson, sir, did not regard arbitration as a measure 
unfit either for him or his country to adopt. Indeed, it is well understood 
that he was so indignant at the King of Holland's line nut being accepted 
by us, diat he declined to take any further steps on the subject of the North- 
•eastern boundary. 

I cannot but regret, Mr. Speaker, that the President, in making up an 
issue before the civilized world , upon which he claims to be relieved from 
all responsibility which may follow the failure to settle this question, has 
omitted all allusion to the fact that arbitration on this subject of Oregon has 
been once solcnmly tendered to us by Great Britain. I am willing, how- 
ever, to put the very best construction on this omission of which it is sus- 
ceptible, and to believe that the President desired to leave him.self still un- 
committed upon the point. Without some such explanation , it certainly 
has a most unfortunate and disingenuous look. This omitted fact is, indeed, 
enough to turn t)ie scale of the pubhc judgment upon the whole issue. 
Arbitration offered by Great Britain , and perseveringly rejected by us, leaves 
the responsibility for the preservation of peace upon our own shoulders. 
'The Administration cannot escape from the burden of that responsibility. 
And a fearful responsibility it is, both to man and to God I 

Before concluding my remarks, as the clock admonishes me I soon must, 
I desire to revert to one or two points to which I alluded briefly at the out- 
set. I have already declared myself opposed to the views of n^y honorable 
colleague, (Mr. Adams,) as to giving the notice to Great Britain. I honestly 
believe that the termination of that convention of joint occupation, (I call it 
by this name for convenience, not perceiving that it makes any material dif- 
ference as to the real questions before us,) at this moment, under existing 
circumstances, and with tlie view, which my honorable colleague has ex- 
pressed, of following it up by the immediate occupation of the whole of 
Oregon, would almost unavoidably terminate in war. I see no probable, 
and hardly any possible, escape from such a consequence, And/o what end 
are we to involve our country in such a calamity? I appeal to my honor- 
able colleague, and to every member on this floor, to tell me what particu- 
lar advantage is to be derived from giving this notice and terminating this 
convention at this precise moment, and in advance of any amicable adjust- 
ment. The honorable member from Pennsylvania (Mr. 0. .T. Ingersoll). 
has said that this convention is the own child of my honorable colleague. 
It has been twice established under his auspices, and with the advice and 
consent of statesmen as patriotic and discriminating as any who now hold 
the helm of our Government. What evil has it done? Wliat evil is it 
now doing? 

The honorable member from Pennsylvania has given us a rich descrip- 
tion of the rapid influx of population into that territory. He has presented 



13 

lis with a lively picture of I know not how many thousand women and 
children on their winding way to this promised land beyond the mountains. 
Let them go. God speed them ! There is nothing in the terms of this 
convention which impedes their passage, nor any thing which prevents us 
from throwing over them the protection of a limited Territorial Governmerit, 
I am ready to go as far as Great Britain has gone in establishing our juris- 
diction there; and no interest, either of those who are going there, or of 
those who are staying here, calls on us to go further at present. The best 
interests of both parties, on the contrary, forbid any such proceeding. Gen- 
tlemen talk about following up this notice by taking immediate possession 
of the territory. This is sooner said than "done. What if Great Britain 
should happen to get the start of us in that proceeding? Such a thing would 
not be matter of very great astonishment to those who remember her celerity 
in such movements, and her power to sustain them when once made. Where 
should we be then? Would there be no war? 

And what would be the consequences of a war under such circumstances; 
the consequences, not upon cotton or upon commerce, not upon Boston, or 
Charleston, or New York, but what would be the consequences so fiu- merely 
as Oregon itself is concerned? The cry is now " the whole of Oregon or 
none," and echo would answer, under such circumstances, "^ none.'" I 
see not how any man in his senses can resist the conviction, that, whatever 
compensation we might console ourselves with, by a cut out of Canada, or 
by the whole of Canada — tliat under whatever circumstances of success we 
might carry on the war in other quarters of the world or of our own continent, 
the adoption of such a course would result in the immediate loss of the 
whole of the territory in dispute. This, at least, is my own honest opinion. 

As a friend, then, to Oregon, with every disposition to maintain our just 
rights to that territory, with the most sincere desire to see that territory in 
the posession of such of our own people as desire to occupy it — whether 
hereafter as an independent nation , as was originally suggested by a distin- 
guished Senator from Missouri, (Mr. Benton,) and more recently by a no 
less distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, (Mr. Webster,) or as a por- 
tion of our own wide-spread and glorious Republic — I am opposed to the 
steps which are now about to be so hotly pursued. 

Sir, I feel that I have a right to express something more than an ordinary 
interest in this matter. There is no better element in our tide to Oregon 
than that which has been contributed by Boston enterprise. You may talk 
about the old navigators of Spain, and the Florida treaty, and the setde- 
ment at Astoria, and the survey of Lewis and Clarke, as much as you please,, 
but you all come back, for your best satisfaction, to " Auld Robin Gray" in 
the end. Captain Robert Gray, of Boston, in the good ship Columbia, 
gave you your earliest right of foothold upon that soil. 

1 have seen, within a few months past, the last survivor of his hardy- 
crew, still living in a green old age, and exhibiting with pride a few origi- 
nal sketches of some of the scenes of that now memorable voyage. My con- 
stituents all feel some pride in their connexion with the tide to this territory. 
But in their name I protest against the result of their peaceful enterprise 
being turned to the account of an unnecessary and destructive war. I pro- 
test against the pure current of the river which they discovered , and to which 
their ship has given its noble name, being wantonly stained with either 
American or British blood I 



14 

But while I am thus opposed to war for Oregon, or to any measures which, 
in my judgment, are likely to lead to war, I shall withhold no vote from 
any measure which the friends of the Administration may bring forward for 
the defence of the country. Whether the bill be for two regiments or for 
twenty regiments, it shall pass for all me. To the last file, to the uttermost 
farthing, which they may require of us, they shall have men and money 
for the public protection. But the responsibility for bringing about such a 
state of things shall be theirs, and theirs only. They can prevent it if 
they please. The Peace of the country and the Honor of the country are 
still entirely compatible with each other. The Oregon question is still per- 
fectly susceptible of an amicable adjustment, and I rejoice to believe that it 
may still be so adjusted. We have had omens of peace in the other end of 
the Capitol, if none in this. But, if war comes, the Administration must 
iake the responsibility for all its guilt and all its disgrace. 



The resolutions referred to in the foregoing speech, and which were of- 
fered by Mr. WiNTHROP in the House of Representatives on the 19th of 
December last, were as follows: 

Resolved, That the differences between the United States and Great Britain, on the subject of 
the Oregon Territory, are still a fit subject for negotiation and compromise, and that satisfactory 
evidence has not yet been afforded that no compromise which the United States ought to accept 
can be effected. 

Resolved, That it would be a dishonor to the age in which we live, and in the highest degree 
discreditable to both the nations concerned, if they should suffer themselves to be drawn into a 
■war, upon a question of no immediate or practical interest to either of them. 

Resolved, That if no other mode for the amicable adjustment of this question remains, it is 
due to the principles of civihzation and Christianity that a resort to arbitration should be had ; 
and that this Government cannot relieve itself from all responsibility which may follow the fail- 
ure to settle the controversy, while this resort is still untried. 

Resolved, That arbitration does not necessarily involve a reference to crowned heads ; and 
that, if a jealousy of such a reference is entertained in any quarter, a commission of able and 
dispassionate citizens, either from the two countries concerned or from the world at large, offers 
itself as an obvious and unobjectionable alternative. 



